Psy-Opera: Proof of Nuclear Demolition?

KILOtons. You know, as in, 1000 tons? 10 kilotons of dynamite = 10,000 [metric] tons of dynamite.

See:

9/11 Deniers: Flunking reading comprehension since 2001.

I mean, how can these people not be embarrassed by their lack of basic knowledge like this???

 

150???? To destroy one [WTC] tower??

"Little Boy," the atomic bomb used on the city (pretty much the entire city) of Hiroshima in WWII, was approximately 15Kt. 1/10th the amount you ridiculously surmise would be needed to destroy 1 WTC.

Your "150" kilotons of dynamite you claim would be "needed" to destroy the WTC... Well, it might be just a tiny bit of overkill.

This site: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml
shows what would happen if your asinine "150" kiloton nuclear weapon were detonated in NYC.

Of note: "An overpressure of at least 10 psi. extends out for 1 mile. Concrete and steel reinforced commercial buildings will be destroyed or severely damaged out to the edge of this ring. The few buildings that remain standing on the outside edge of this ring will have their interiors destroyed. Though the thermal pulse is intense enough to ignite most materials, the shock wave will likely extinguish most fires in this ring."

Embarrassing. Really embarrassing that people could be so ignorant of basic principles in the supposed "Information Age".

 

I'm feeling a bit of Dejavu

 

A "well founded study" would include mention of the fact that all of the floor assemblies disintegrated, and would seek an explanation for sufficient energy.

Can anyone cite ANY evidence for the macroscopic survival of any floor assemblies?

Floor assemblies MUST survive to support any sort of collapse theory, yet there is zero evidence to support it. Conversely, there is powerful photographic evidence showing disintegrated floor assemblies, i.e, the footprints of the towers.

There is simply NO EVIDENCE to support a gravity collapse theory.

 

What do you mean by the term disintegrated? What is your evidence that the floor assembly disintegrated? Please me your study that tests the energy required to cause this disintegration.

What? Have you read the NIST report? The NIST report references, and shows evidence of the failure floor assemblies, and their attachment brackets. The gathered this evidence by looking at the actual floor assemblies and their truss connections.

Here's one of them.

Why must floor assemblies "survive" to support any sort of collapse theory?

Again, huh?

What do you think filled up the "huge hole in the bedrock?" so full that the rubble pile still towered over the site?

 

NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix A is a wealth of floor truss, and floor truss connection information. If you're actually looking to locate "evidence for the macroscopic survival of any floor assemblies" I would start there.

I'm surprised your "diligent study" didn't include this in the first place.


Floor Truss material Pg. 205 NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix A.

Pg. 251 NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix A.

 

LOL, that picture is certainly not from ground zero. Here's what I'm talking about. Supposedly 107 floor assemblies fell down right here in the footprint of WTC2. Where are they? They're not invisible. They disintegrated.

 

What date was that picture taken? How much of the cleanup had already taken place, prior to this shot?

 

How many nuclear explosions have you seen?

 

So? Are you disputing that the picture is of WTC floor assemblies?

The problem with your image is three fold.

The first is a matter of scale. Why would you expect to be able to discern floor assemblies in this image? The trusses themselves were just a few inches wide, the webbing even thinner. How do you know you're not looking at the remains of the floor assemblies?

The second is a matter of depth. The foundations of the WTC extended more then 70 feet into the ground. That's 7 stories of rubble hidden from the view of this image. Are you saying that you can tell from this image that there's no floor assemblies in the entire pile of rubble?

The third problem has already been pointed out. This image was taken well after the collapse. Smaller, easy to remove debris has already been cleared away to expose larger, more difficult to remove debris. As I already mentioned, the floor assemblies were light and would have been more easily cleared away.

 

huh? Did I say bomb or weapon? LMAO

I dont think so.

my my all the empty presumptions.

 

looks like the core dropped away huh LMAO

 

You said it would take over 150kt of TNT to blow up one WTC. Whether you used the word bomb or weapon is irrelevant, the delivery method is irrelevant. The unit of destructive power expressed by saying "150kt of TNT" is not affected by the casing it is in - you are arguing a "pound of feathers vs. pound of lead" type of argument.


I was merely pointing out that your math was pathetically ignorant of the actual facts. It would not take anywhere near 150kt of TNT to destroy WTC. You are wrong. Period.

 

Boy...musta been really hot to twist all that steel up like noodles huh?

 

Judging from the picture, I think pressure is a far more likely candidate.

 

That your offer of proof? "What you judge" from the picture. Looks like heat to me.

 

What about that photo denotes heat to you? Point it out.

 

The floors were corrugated steel pans, an acre in size. They were filled with steel reinforced concrete. There would be 107 of them stacked up like square donuts, with crushed building contents in between every layer. This would easily be seen in the photo I posted, and in many other photos. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY floors survived.

In short, there is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the idea that floors did not disintegrate. When you base your position on NO EVIDENCE, you are not scientific.

BRAVO to Psy-Opera for having the courage to bring the truth.

 

That's assuming the concrete didn't get pulverized back into powder

And there was ample evidence that happened

 

This is false.

The steel pans were not an acre in size.

The steel pans were not corrugated.

The concrete slab was not steel reinforced.

The floor was made up of a system of prefabricated main trusses and bridging trusses. The metal deck pans were fluted, and only spanned a 13'x6' area between the main trusses and the transverse bridging trusses. 4" of lightweight concrete sat on top of that. There is no model of collapse that requires these systems remain a cohesive unit during collapse. In fact, due to their lightweight nature and design, there's little reason to believe they would remain a cohesive unit during collapse.

I showed you evidence that the floors did not disintegrate. Your only complaint was that it wasn't a picture of the site. I don't consider that a valid complaint. Beyond that, there's loads more evidence available to anyone who actually took the time to read the NIST report, or peruse the terabyte of supporting data that was released. That means there's more then zero evidence that the floors did not disintegrate. Quite a bit more in fact.

Just because they managed to leave it out of your film, that does not mean it does not exist.

When you ignore evidence that does not fit your hypothesis you are not scientific.

 

The floors were made of STEEL. S-T-E-E-L. Corrugated steel floor pans, filled with concrete and rebar. It is absurd to think all the concrete would be pulverized into power, for there is not sufficient energy in a gravity collapse to accomplish this. But forget the concrete. Focus on the STEEL. S-T-E-E-L.

Where is ANY evidence for STEEL floor pans. There should be 107 of them, inside the footprint of each tower. And there was zero.

Again, did I mention that the floors were made of STEEL? You can understand plain English, yes? STEEL.

 

"The steel pans were not an acre in size"

I think he is trying to argue that they were .999999999999 acre NOT an acre.

I mean we all know how critical and pertinent .000000000001 is to the argument! LMAO

 

agreed
it comes down to that

 

And the fact that the pile of rubble doesn't look like what you, an amateur, thinks it should look like, proves what?

In other words, what does the appearance or non-appearance of those "floor pans" prove to you?

 

You clearly don't know what floor decking is. The deck was 22 gauge 1 1/2 fluted metal deck. That's basically sheet metal just .76 of a millimeter thick. This was completely shredded by much more massive elements including, (but not limited to) the floor truss chords and straps during the collapse.

And for the second time, the concrete was not reinforced with rebar.



Above you can see the prefab decking sections. They are spaced 6' apart, and are supported by transverse trusses at 13'. The decking is only as wide as that 6' gap between main trusses. They are not an acre in area per floor. Even if you count an entire floor as a single unit, which it is not, the central core takes up a large portion of the area.